Why People Should Be Outraged at Zimmerman's 'Not Guilty' Verdict

"

Xendran wrote:

"Very insignificant" injuries. That's like, scratches or maybe a stray fist. Caused by the fact that zimmerman instigated a conflict intentionally after he was told not to by law enforcement officials.

Except that 911 operators aren't law enforcement, and their directions are not legally binding.

"

Zimmerman instigated conflict, but not of the physical variety. Martin made it physical.

Where the facts are fuzzy is who instigated what. There was little proof for either argument.

All we know is the result, in that Zimmerman was on the ground taking hits.

Now the pics might look superficial, but having you head hit against concrete can be very sever, and Zimmerman was right to fear for his life in this case.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't agree with Zimmerman's actions, but they are understandable considering his circumstance.

I thought he would get manslaughter, due to his actions in following Martin, but the jury has spoken. No need to drag it out. Aussie who followed the case btw.

The Stand Your Ground law has nothing to do with this case, it's all covered by fundamental self defence.

Furthermore, Zimmerman was not told that he was "needed not to" pursue Martin as certain demonstrators have been saying, he was told he was "not needed to": the concern here as always is that an individual acting alone might get himself hurt, which Zimmerman was. This is largely immaterial anyway, both because 911 operators aren't law enforcement as Ciknay said, but also because the USA is not a police state. Policemen have the power to enforce the law, not to issue arbitrary orders to citizens against going about their lawful business. Zimmerman is a private individual and can suspect whomever he likes for whatever reasons please him, and he can act upon those suspicions if that's what his conscience dictates he should do.

It is also unfair to say that we don't know who initiated what, because Zimmerman was injured and Martin's only injuries other than the gunshot were scrapes on his knuckles consistent with his having thrown one or more punches. As he couldn't have started swinging at Zimmerman and pounding his head into the ground after he was fatally shot - the evidence of other witnesses precludes that as a possibility even if it wasn't inherently ridiculous - then we can say with almost total certainty that Martin initiated the physical conflict. This is unlawful, regardless of any verbal exchanges that might have taken place beforehand - nothing of which we have heard anyway, despite having an almost complete record of the events from neighbours who were alerted to the violence and shouting as soon as it started to take place.

Zimmerman's account of the verbal exchange, which is about three lines long and consists of his being reconciliatory while Martin acts threateningly, is also plausible, while any account in which Zimmerman is somehow starting trouble has numerous logical flaws: Zimmerman knows that the police are on their way while Martin does not, and is therefore unlikely to say or do anything that might cast him in a bad light when they arrive; and anything else Zimmerman might have plausibly said that casts him in a more negative light doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's imagine that Zimmerman told Martin to stay still and wait for the police - under what compulsion was Martin to obey him? Zimmerman certainly couldn't have had his gun trained on Martin, because Martin would never have been able to lay a finger on him if that had been the case: We know that only one shot was fired from the gun, and that this was the fatal shot. Martin could simply have told him to go to hell and walked away, under this scenario.

Given the facts that are actually in evidence, Zimmerman should probably be commended for his restraint: we know he's on the ground, subject to violent attack, crying out for help, for a relatively long time before the gun is discharged, which lends a great deal of credence to Zimmerman's claim that he only went for his weapon because he feared Martin was about to turn it on him. It's reasonable to believe that Zimmerman could have produced the gun earlier in the attack and chose not to do so.

It's also worth noting that not only is there no evidence of racism on Zimmerman's part during the entire encounter, but also active support for the argument that his suspicions were based on wholly legitimate grounds. He claimed that the individual he'd seen was behaving strangely, as though he were under the influence of drugs, and there were traces of drugs found in Martin's body; he clearly finds it strange that someone was walking alone at night in the rain, which is at least somewhat unusual in many parts of the USA; and he is alerted by Martin's habit of staring at buildings, which is a reasonable enough thing to perk the interest of any neighbourhood watchman.

There is also a major logical gulf in terms of anyone fearing receiving the same treatment as Martin at the hands of an individual like Zimmerman, which is the intervening violent altercation. If someone does follow you, believing you to be a possible burglar, are you not free to calmly explain your business; call the police yourself; or simply walk off? There's no evidence that Martin attempted any of those actions - while he does run off at one point, the encounter takes place mere meters from Zimmerman's vehicle, which supports his claim that Martin came back and initiated the encounter. It's almost impossible to devise a situation in which Martin took evasive action and ended up, essentially, right back where he started.

Lastly, if we wish to engage in conjecture, then we are able to engage in positive conjecture. What if Zimmerman was correct that Martin was behaving strangely, as though on drugs, but he was not on drugs? He could have been having a medical episode of some sort: Zimmerman's following him might have enabled him to render life-saving assistance, if Martin had collapsed, or if the two men had spoken and it had transpired that Martin was a diabetic under the influence of a blood sugar imbalance. Taking an interest in other people is not automatically negative or harmful. More simply, Martin may have been lost and Zimmerman could have provided him with directions - this would have explained some of Martin's behaviour too.

But all of this aside, it's essential to remember that even if we believe Zimmerman to secretly be a black-hating, sharp-tongued, trigger-happy busybody with a police fixation, a court of law still requires evidence and the evidence that we have, limited or one-sided as it might be, supports Zimmerman's story entirely and makes "Not Guilty" the only rational verdict no matter what you might think of him or the essential validity of his claims. Far from being outraged that he was found Not Guilty, we should all have the common sense to recognise that it was the only lawful verdict that could ever have been rendered in this case, given that the evidence was as it was. The man had a valid legal defence.

"

Xendran wrote:

Caused by the fact that zimmerman instigated a conflict intentionally after he was told not to by law enforcement officials.

I really don't see going up to someone as instigating a conflict. If Trayvon really did put his hands on Zimmerman first then I would say he instigated the conflict.

"

Xendran wrote:

Also, for people arguing "he was found not guilty by law. get over it".
Tread topic didn't say that he should or shouldn't be found guilty, only that the not guilty verdict should be angering.

I disagree with the verdict but I don't think I have to be angered by it. He had a fair trial and its over. People need to move on.

Found this, thought it was relevant.

jury found him innocent, end of story. It really is that simple.

"

ciknay wrote:

Found this, thought it was relevant.

Spoiler

except the teens were actually committing a crime in the first example, and martin was not.

There is probably corroborating evidence in the first that the teens, several, were out committing crimes. Where Trayvon Martin, alone, had corroborating that he was buying skittles and arizona tea.

Roderick Scott was most likely arrested and charged on the spot...not 44 days later due to pleas from the community that the guy needs to be charged.


I agree, the stories are pretty different...

For the purposes at hand, it doesn't matter whether Martin had been engaging in criminal activity or not. Zimmerman's free to find him or his actions suspect even if it's utterly misguided to do so, and he's not free to shoot him even if Martin had been selling drugs to prostitutes out of the back of a stolen van driven by slaves.

What is critical is what happens when the men confront each other, and from what we know about this - from hard evidence like medical facts and audio recordings - it's very hard to devise a plausible scenario in which Martin is blameless. Zimmerman suffered a sustained attack to his head, during which time frame Martin was uninjured except for the damage to his fist caused by it striking Zimmerman's face. He was not shot out of the blue, but at the end of a struggle which all available evidence suggests was instigated by Martin, and in which Zimmerman participated only as a victim.

"

Live like a thug, die like a thug.

However, he shall at least be known as the best salesman for Skittles and Arizona Tea forever.

Gotta make that purple drank somehow.